Hayley is a Ghost

Testing Psychic Sally Morgan

Posted on: October 29, 2011

*edit* My initial concerns over Sally Morgan not being given the chance to ‘design’ the test she was being asked to undertake have been addressed by Professor Chris French who has pointed out that although media coverage of the challenge didn’t lay emphasis on it, the test is adaptable with her input.

I apologize for being incorrect at the time of blogging. I still do no believe that such a challenge and the publicity that surrounds it is the best way to enable educational outreach, but I am glad that Chris could answer my other concerns.

—–
Sally Morgan is currently getting a lot of attention
, and I cannot help but feel it is the wrong sort of attention – the sort of attention that is giving people the wrong message about skepticism. The Merseyside Skeptics, Simon Singh, Chris French and the JREF have all issued Sally Morgan with a challenge that will take place on October 31st, Halloween, in Liverpool which is where Sally will be for one of her shows.

The challenge was issued to Sally at a time when there have been mentions of legal action being taken by people acting on behalf of her – when she is the least likely to respond to any criticism, and soldier on with her claims and shows.

In all reality it is at a time like this, when doubt has been cast on her abilities and honesty (something I hold no facts on, just personal opinion) that people wanting to promote critical thinking should be engaging with those attending the psychic stage shows. A look around online will show that some Sally Morgan fans are starting to doubt her abilities – there has been discussion on various Sally Morgan facebook groups that her shows have lots of empty seats, and people who are attending the shows are suddenly aware of the lack of hits Sally is making, with some fans describing her performances as poor or disappointing.

It is these people that skeptics can reach by engaging with them, which is what I created Project Barnum for – to help people not only find the information they’re looking for (about cold reading etc.) but also to provide resources for people to use to engage with others.

a photo of a crystal ball being held with the words 'get hands on with project barnum' over the top

Unfortunately, Project Barnum isn’t headline grabbing stuff because it takes time and effort and isn’t overly showy. It’s just information waiting to be passed on – but let’s not forget it is information that makes the differences.

A publicity stunt in which a challenge is issued only reaches those who already have their minds made up one way or another – those who do not believe Sally Morgan is psychic will be in support of the challenge and use it as an “I told you so” tool, much like all of the other psychic challenges that have been issued in the past, especially where the psychics have failed. Those who believe in psychic ability will see it as another way “closed minded skeptics” are attacking psychics.

Sally will not be attending the challenge – we know that already – so it serves no real useful purpose other than to demonstrate, once again, that a psychic such as Morgan isn’t willing to talk to skeptics. We know that already, as she has often stated that she doesn’t have to prove anything to anyone who doubts her.

Not only this, but why would Sally Morgan take part in a challenge devised by people who haven’t spoken to her about her abilities and have only built up a picture of what she claims to be able to do from her website and television shows?

I know from experience that there is a lot more to the story when it comes to people who think they are psychic. It isn’t just a case of being able to talk to the dead, or being able to locate missing people, or being able to get messages from objects by holding them. Without actually talking to somebody about their claimed abilities, you can’t claim to know how to go about testing their abilities.

Patricia Putt, for example, was tested by the JREF (and failed) but detailed to Righteous Indignation in an interview how she had agreed to the test conditions in advance with those who were testing her. I think that by creating a test or challenge before even speaking to Morgan was the biggest mistake those involved in the Halloween challenge could have made, because it gave Morgan the perfect reason to not agree to the test.

Does Sally Morgan claim to be able to predict the names of seven out of ten deceased people by looking at their photos? I know she does some photo readings during her shows, but as someone who has watched her televisions shows as they’ve aired I don’t even know how many photos she reads from in one go. Do you?

Do not get me wrong – it is good and important to direct as much attention to potential psychic cheats as is possible, but at the same time we have to remember that it isn’t just the potential cheats who are gaining attention, it is also those generating that critical attention – and if not done correctly, then we all look like idiots and reinforce the stereotypes that surround skeptics.

I have a full list of numerous big name psychics, where they’ll be touring and when. I would implore any skeptical groups or organisations to get in touch because by talking to just a few people attending a psychic show about how they can work out for themselves if they’re being misled or not, you can make a difference.

I personally don’t care if Sally Morgan does or does not agree to be tested, what I care about is the person paying to go to a show without knowing how to spot a cheat. I honestly believe this is where the biggest difference can be made.
By arming people with information we’re not forcing our beliefs or opinions on others, but simply enabling them to think for themselves and if that’s the least we can do, then that’s marvelous.

Advertisements

26 Responses to "Testing Psychic Sally Morgan"

Another really terrific post on one of my very favorite skeptical blogs.

It is so rare that people within the skeptics community seem willing to criticize each other. I find that the movement and community spends altogether too much time congratulating itself and celebrating how cool it is to hang out with each other that it can lose its focus on the real work that needs to be done to achieve our collective goals.

As I’ve mentioned dozens of times, though, I really appreciate your ability to politely and respectfully communicate with people with opposing points of view. This is what makes RI an excellent podcast and, of course, makes Hayley Is A Ghost such a terrific blog.

So, keep up the tremendous honesty which we have come to enjoy from the terrific Hayley Stevens.

I’d also like to point out the terrific alt-text tag you put on the photo in your blog piece. Those of us with print impairments really appreciate the extra effort.

I agree with some of your comments here Hayley. However in my view there is absolutely a need for events such as this to provide an opportunity for her to respond. The event on Monday is slated as either a per devised test or an opportunity for her to specify how she thinks an objective test might take place.

Failure to engage with criticism in a material way, if thats what happens, is what is being exposed here. That’s an important public message that wouldn’t be exposed otherwise. As usual we can now see that she’d rather get her lawyer involved than actually do anything meaningful.

Project Barnum is in its infancy. I think the idea could be expanded upon and consideration given to the longer term possibilities. This kind of resource has longevity, Monday’s event, I suspect, will be shorter lived but still an essential part of the overall effort.

As skeptics, I have said this before, we don’t have an image problem. We have an activity problem which is improving all the time as more and more people and groups organise themselves to be more than a talking shop.

It is the activities that create the public information and this test could easily result in people finding Project Barnum and benefiting from the information therein.

More more more, I say.

Cheers

Andy 🙂

If I were a psychic being tested by a skeptic society, I would listen to some of their podcasts and see how fair a hearing I would get. If they scoffed and were continually saying that psychics were cheats and liars, I would then know that they would not give me a fair hearing.

That said, what is the point of anyone making up another test that everyone knows a psychic is not going to undertake? It is just more publicity for the psychic.

There is distrust between both camps, and it seems to be getting more and more polarised. Skeptics should try and engage more with audience believers, each one is a potential convert. Hayley was a believer once, convert more believers, get people thinking for themselves…get enough audience believers coverted and the lucrative market base could collapse.

As I see it, if you can get enough doubt into the majority (possibly all) of the believers then any psychic would have to accept a skeptical challenge or risk losing their audience.

If I were a psychic, I would want independent verification of my abilities. In commercial terms it’s the same as having a return on investment case. Facts and figures. That makes my work more valuable.

I host the InKredulous podcast. That doesn’t mean that my satirical bent translates to a desire for fulfilment of my pre-determined position. It would want it played with a straight bat.

Cheers

Andy

Playing with a straight bat (giving a fair hearing, or however else it could be expressed) is the ideal promised by skepticism. We say “if you can show that it is so, using methods and evidence that satisfy (the established meaning of) the label “scientific”, then we will accept that it is so, but not before”. That is a promise of a fair hearing; a set of consistent and objective rules that are applied to, and if possible decide, everything. And so long as that is the bottom line it probably doesn’t matter if there is humour to be found along the way.

So, if I have understood correctly and am up to date (neither of which are guaranteed), Sally Morgan has been the subject of a small set of mutually confirming, but effectively anonymous, accusations (are they still anonymous?), and what she has been accused of has been shown to be technically viable (i.e. there is, or has been, an earpiece). Which, if assessed by the scientific standards for evidence, is pretty much as (in)significant as the assertion “it works for me” is when applied to homeopathy. And even by the less rigorous standards of evidence used in law courts this does not even constitute a case, let alone a conviction.

Yet I don’t’ have to look far to find people (some of whom presumably would categorize themselves as skeptics) using this incident to link Sally Morgan and the word “fraud”, or statements such as “what else could be done to expose this woman” with its implied pre-supposition of guilt (there is no meaning in attempting to “expose” the potentially innocent). An inference of guilt where the “evidence” does not support it is an injustice, and if skeptics make that inference then there are double standards in play.

Step away from the paranormal aspects of this and consider what happens, and what you do, if you become the subject of accusations of some arbitrary offence (insert the specific offence that would do the most harm to your reputation) in equivalent circumstances (though assuming that you are not guilty of whatever is accused). Do you engage with the people who take the accusations seriously? Do you go out of your way to “prove” the accusations false? Do you offer to take a polygraph test? Or wouldn’t that server to give credence to those accusations, and risk backfiring, for little or no real benefit? No, instead you go to a lawyer and follow the advice they give, which will probably include having your accusers make their case formally before you do anything toward addressing it.

Personally I don’t believe that psychic/mediumship phenomenon are possible (on their own terms), which has obvious implications for my perception of anyone claiming to employ them. The accusations against Sally Morgan play straight into my opinions, preconceptions and prejudices, giving them a superficial credibility. However, that is not good enough; the purported skeptical standards of evidence are not met, the case is not made, the ‘guilt’ is not proved, and the inferences from the failure to address the (actually unsupported) accusations are unjust.

In the end I find the “playing with a straight bat”, the “fair hearing” and the “justice” far too important to abandon them, and certainly not in an attempt to bring down one stage psychic (no matter how opportune the possibility of doing so).

Thing is, I don’t think you can step away from the paranormal aspects of this. Without action from those who care, those who don’t care can have their most intimate emotions played with at the behest of a self proclaimed psychic or whatever. It is precisely this that motivates us to want to do anything at all.

It is the disbelief that motivates us. That we have satisfied ourselves individually to state internally “this is not right. He/she is not doing what they claim to be doing” and then looking to explain the alternative explanations for the phenomena. Project Barnum does this most eloquently.

But then you have the specific example of a psychic show being called into question by the specific audience members. More than one claiming they heard references being made from behind them in the very back of the theatre and then Sally Morgan repeating what they had just heard. If not with a specific and direct action, how else should we respond to a specific case? And what language can be used to describe what this would be if it were true? Other than an alleged fraud? You can’t discuss it openly without using language like that. There have been responses from the theatre and from Sally Morgan. Should we just take their word for it without making a bolder challenge, in a way that carries enough weight to provoke a response? Good PR advice is often to simply go quiet and it all goes away. It’s our job not to let that happen.

Its a breaking story and the media are interested now. That’s when we need to act.

@Andy

I would be very surprise if many (if any) of the believers in psychics/mediums “don’t care” (and if they really didn’t I don’t see why we should). I suspect that they would strongly object to the idea of a con-man (or should that be con-person?) using tricks to give the false impression of abilities in order to extract money from them. Their problem is that they don’t have any tools that can be used to differentiate between the people with the “real” abilities and the people who may be faking them. Granted they may not actually care until they stop and think about the problem, but having thought about it they will almost certainly would care.

The specific case of Sally Morgan is an “alleged fraud” whether it’s true or not. That is, the allegation is of hot reading, and, unlike cold reading, there is no way that could be going on without the informed and deliberate intent of the person using it; it would be fraud. But what I am questioning is whether the evidence is good enough to declare that allegation true in this case. I don’t think it is. We wouldn’t accept the existence of psychic abilities on the bases of a few testimonials, and so we shouldn’t accept the existence of fraud on what is effectively an equivalent basis.

This incident certainly raises the wider question of (previously demonstrated extant) fraud in the area of psychics/mediums, which would suggest that it is not wise to taking any particular psychic/medium’s words at face value. But for the individual a presumption of innocence until proved otherwise is an important principle in justice, and should not be abandoned lightly even in the court of public opinion.

It really shouldn’t be too difficult to get beyond the Sally Morgan incident (without passing premature judgment) and onto the wider issue of the problems with fraud in this area, which have much better factual support and are probably equally relevant to the potential audience. So, for example, it might be observed that regardless of the status of Sally Morgan there is a demonstrated problem of con-men impersonating psychic/medium abilities and doing (at minimum) financial harm to people who would probably rather they didn’t. And that since it is in the nature of con-men that they do whatever they can to avoid detection, it might be a reasonable approach towards preventing the exploitation of the innocent to develop a test (or tests) that can validate the “real” psychics/mediums; attacking the problem from the other end. And then point out that “big name” psychics/mediums seem unwilling to do anything to help towards developing and validating that, otherwise valuable looking, test.

Hi Richard. I couldn’t post below your comment so I hope this finds you.

If you take a look from my perspective, the belief system that backs up belief in psychic abilities very much means that “they don’t care”. Even the witness interviewed on the radio about what they had seen/heard went to great lengths to explain they believed in Sally Morgan and couldn’t understand it. So part of the job is to move an individual from not caring to caring. Then that person may be more willing to critically examine the situation. Sometimes provocation is a legitimate way to do this.

Whether we should care on their behalf depends upon your personal position. I don’t like the idea of being conned personally and I don’t like the idea of someone else being conned. It is reasonable to say “if they con’t care, why should I care?”. It’s just not my position. I care very much about the inequality of choice that arises when a con artist snares an unsuspecting prey. I find the practice anti social and mean spirited.

I don’t think the evidence is good enough to declare Sally Morgan a fraud. Nor am I saying that I believe she is. But I think it is good enough to demand an answer. I’m personally not satisfied that the only answer has come from those with interests to protect. And a lawyer who is interested in protecting Sally’s interests. Therefore it seems reasonable to ask her to take some kind of objective test to verify her claims. She does it all the time in casual interview situations so what does she have to hide?

I agree with your points further down so I hope this clarifies my position specifically with reference to the current story on Sally Morgan.

Cheers

Andy

@Andy

Well, my concerns were that calls to “expose” and demands (rather than requests) for a response, or inferences of guilt from a failure to respond to a case that hadn’t really been made, could easily drift into what would come across as personal harassment and/or bullying. And that could be expected to result in the sort of polarization that discourages people from even thinking about the positions they are taking.

On the other hand, apparently yesterday Sally Morgan declared that “They have to prove to me there is no afterlife”, which is an implied challenge of her own. And a challenge that the MSS et al are in a position to accept, subject to a review of whatever protocol she is proposing for her test (and it is only fair that she present an initial protocol for her challenge as they pre-prepared a protocol for the ‘prove psychic abilities’ test that she would not accept). Thus Sally drives her own critical publicity.

You have echoed many of the criticisms I have been aiming towards Singh and MSS!

You might not always agree with me Hayley and I know I drive you mad at times, but like it or not you are slowly coming round to my way of thinking! No go wash that dirty feeling off yourself lol

Actually, A lot of “ex-fans” who have actually attended Sally’s live shows, have been giving information to Simon Singh. Not just people who watch her crap on the television.
Skepticism is a way of thought, not a religion you can slap a bunch of rules to.
I myself and several others have signed your PB petition, we’re all for it but in the meantime, having someone do something pro-active in bringing the story to light, so that a wider audience can be alerted of the happenings within this whole debacle, seems to be better than sitting back and doing nothing or waiting while Sally Morgan cons more grieving people.

Fans giving information is not the same as talking to Sally directly. There’s no excuse for not discussing it with her no matter how you try to defend it.
I’m glad you signed the Project Barnum petition and are ‘all for it’, but I personally don’t think the challenge is at all pro-active as you state. Like I mentioned in the blog post above, making headlines with a challenge like this only really reaches those who already have their minds made up one way or another.

Newspaper headlines are an impersonal way of trying to reach people and rarely work.

I am also not asking people to sit back ‘doing nothing and waiting’.

But if you read Simon’s Blog in full, you would have seen that he did call Sally herself and spoke to her management team via telephone, he did try several times to contact her in a more personal manner and Sally refuses to talk to anyone unless it is via her Lawyer. Therefore, what other way is there to get her attention?

You are the second person who has criticised Simon that I have discussed this with tonight, I see plenty of the criticising going on but no one seems to be able to give any suggestions (besides your PB thing) on what else could be done to expose this woman/cretin.

Instead of having a bitch about what you think sucks about the challenge, how about writing out a list of other ideas/suggestions of things that could be done to put a stop to Sally Morgan and others like her.
You came up with PB, I am sure you and Jon and others could put your heads together and since you’re such super skeptics, come up with some other plan that would have more of an impact while sending out your skepticism on a fluffy rainbow cloud. 🙂

Caroline, I don’t appreciate your aggressive tweet in which you called Jon and I and others pricks and egotistical for not agreeing with the challenge. I also am not having ‘a bitch’, I am expressing my opinion and thoughts. I get that you don’t agree with me. However, I’m not going to engage with you, your ideas or comments anymore. I make a habit of not engaging with those who act aggressively.

I was in no way referring to you in my tweet. Did I mention you specifically? No. I am sorry you feel it was aimed in your direction. I am also sorry that you see my post as aggressive, I am in no way at all being so. I said ‘A bitch’ meaning ‘a whinge’ or similar, I do apologise if my Australian slang comes across as aggressive.
I never said I didn’t agree with you, I just disagreed on a few points.
Is this your way of avoiding my questions then?
That’s a shame, I really do/want/need some constructive advice on how better to approach this whole debacle.
It seems Jon also couldn’t come up with any solutions either. Strange that.
Instead of debating amongst us, we should be sticking together.

Also, I was not even aware of this blog when I posted that comment on Twitter. In fact I don’t even follow you on Twitter. If you look back, it was in response to a post by Jon to Simon. So I don’t even know how you came up with the connection that I was referring to you.

you referred to people who criticised the test as egotistical pricks on twitter at 3:29pm and you commented on this blog post at 3:22pm….

Since I can’t reply to you directly, Hayley, I’ll post here. Make of it what you will. My comments on twitter are in no way related to anything I have posted on here. I think you’re just using it as an excuse to avoid discussion with anyone who disagrees with you…and you’re obviously neurotic.
Again I repeat, that comment was in response to Jon. I didn’t want to be aggressive and single him out so I said “people.” But hey, I won’t deny that I definitely was referring to Jon.
I had several tabs open, I had already typed the comment. I can’t explain the time stamp but I do know I hadn’t even read your blog when I posted it, whether you believe me or not, is not something I really care much about, I know what I meant and I won’t be losing any sleep over it.
I think next time you write a blog, you should make sure you have all the facts first especially if you’re going to be criticising anyone.
I also think big noting yourselves as “uber skeptics,” is really pompous and that is really the only part that annoyed me about your blog. You can’t slap rules on it and pick who is and who isn’t a “real skeptic.” That is just ridiculous.
Anyway, my lack of care for your opinion means I have had my say and won’t be returning to read anymore of your “thoughts.”

Cool. Well, I don’t think myself an uber skeptic and I don’t dictate what others should and shouldn’t do, I share my opinions – just as you have done with this comment. Welcome to MY BLOG.

Actually my only comment on this post is going to be: I do think there should be debate amongst us. Skeptics claim to be rational and logical and evidence based- that doesn’t equal “sticking together”

When PZ Myers or Richard Dawkins or Derren Brown say something incorrect or do something wrong the skeptical and atheist community is quick to jump in and pull them up for it.

I think “sticking together” creates a cult atmosphere and we should be challenging each other if we think we aren’t firing on all thrusters. This stunt on monday doesn’t sit too well with me either, for many of the reasons Hayley mentions above, and I’m surprised such heavy weights as Singh and French, along with the usually wonderful MSS, can possibly think this is a good idea. I’ve even defended them to Hayley on Twitter saying I don’t think this is *just* a publicity stunt but I do certainly feel that it is going to do nothing to dent Sallys reputation amongst non skeptics nor do I think it’s going to paint skeptics in a positive light. I think it’s a misfire, issuing a challenge is fair enough and her response to not attend is as expected, but to plough on with the test and hold the stunt on Monday as planned I don’t think will accomplish anything worthwhile and will just cement in the minds of believers that we are confrontational and arrogant.

At least a big part of 10:23 involved protest and raising awareness. I can’t see this doing either, though I hope I will be shown to be wrong after tomorrow!

Addendum: By “Debate amongst skeptics” I don’t mean the annoying infighting that has been occuring over the past few months, but legitimate discussion.

I think this debate has exercised me more than any other of recent and that’s reflected in the spread of opinion amongst many people that I respect. I can see that Sally can be viewed as vulnerable at the moment and so I suppose she’s a weak point in the psychic armour that could potentially be exploited. I don’t however see how issuing the challenge will make any difference. The Jref has had the Sylvia Browne clock running in one form or another for 10 years now. In that time she’s had some spectacular misses but she still continues. I’ll be interested to see how it’s possible to make useful long term capital from Sally’s probable no-show.

I disagree Andy when you say that Skeptics have no image problem. That surely depends upon who you ask. I was disappointed with the tone of Simon’s email to the lawyers. Not because I think they are right or I have any overt sympathy for lawyers, but up to that point all the stuff I’d read was, I thought, balanced and reasoned and difficult to reproach in tone. I’m a big fan of his work but the way he phrased that response gives an easy dismissal option as rude and/or arrogant.

In the long term I suspect I will find reference to the Project Barnum resources more useful in discussions with believers than reference to the challenge. I won’t talk about activism as a representative of any group as I think that we’re ultimately a collection of mainly like-minded individuals, some of whom support different projects and initiatives. Personally I like talking to people about what they believe and if this makes me no more than a “talking shop” then I can live with that. Communication is a form of activism surely.

Hi Patrick. Fair enough points there. When I say that skeptics don’t have an image problem, it’s probably misleading. What I mean is that “of all the problems skeptics have, this is probably in the lower order of priorities”

“talking shop” wasn’t perjorative, just descriptive and I agree with your comment about that being a form of activism.

I love the fact that in our skeptical community we value individual opinions, and each is given due consideration. No-one is above criticism etc. But it frustrates me how it is being handled. Let me be clear about what I am saying.

I don’t believe that skepticism has a reputation to protect right now. What is the public face of skepticism in the UK that we must so carefully nurture and cherish? Who is that?

All we have a re the actions we take. Simon’s got a bee in his bonnett about this one. So what? MSS are involved. So what?

If we are a group of individuals taking action by ourselves or in a more organised way with others who agree on a specific thing, then I think we should let each other’s work stand on it’s own merits. This navel gazing is, in my opinion, over egged in its importance.

We need to crack on. There will come a time when such things may then matter. That time is not now. We need to think a lot bigger than this if we’re going to make genuine impact and become a long term force for good.

Cheers

Andy

Hi Andy

Thanks for the response. I don’t think we’re in too much disagreement here, I probably didn’t express my views too clearly. I’m not into navel gazing either, but there’s no harm as individuals in sitting back and looking at why we do what we do every now and again. This doesn’t need to be done with any level of hand wringing or pointing of fingers though.

I’m not really against the idea of the trial per se and have defended it in conversations I had with Jon Donnis. You won’t find these online as I tend to be private in most of my interactions. I think that the breadth of people involved in skepticism, however you define it, means that there are multiple approaches to the different topics and targets. I’m not against the use of satire or the odd bit of ridicule and humour where required and this is reflected in the podcasts that I enjoy and the blogs that I like to read. There must be a place for both thoughtful outreach and outright challenge. I’m probably better at the former as I lack the spontaneous wit and confidence for the latter 🙂

I’m still unsure of the longterm benefits of the challenge but I’ll be watching to see how it plays out. I have a lot of respect for the work that the Merseyside Skeptics do and I’m looking forward to chatting with Marsh when he comes to Birmingham later in the month and seeing you again at QED.

Cheers

Patrick

I’m not feeling any sympathy for Sally. She makes a ton of money. She totally deserves to be called on it to justify her worth. That said, I don’t love the way the details have played out. But, it’s not my game.

The public has a hard time with subtlety. This crude calling out is likely having an effect. Sure, it may turn some off but she just can’t come out of this looking good. We shall see how it goes after the hammer falls.

Sally Morgan aside, I want to say thanks to Hayley for Project Barnum. In my unicorn farting rainbow world I’d like to see educational outreach be a (no, make that THE) most important part of skeptical activism. Then, debunking/discrediting of ideas/people are used to complement the lessons, and not be the main event.

Without a clear educational (or political) goal, I question the productivity of targeting individuals just because they fit into some category with the sub-heading ‘feel free to humiliate/badger/harass said person, and oh, don’t forget to tell everyone else – it’s a free for all. Bring your own bat’. <== (not a sally morgan reference, just some skepticism in general).

I'd like to see a lot less of targeting individuals unless said targeting is serving a higher purpose, i.e. education, legal, political, etc. I hope Project Barnum does well, and similar initiatives in other skeptical areas. Really looking forward to seeing the outcomes and what we can learn from them.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Hayley is a ghost

Hayley Stevens is an advocate for science-based research into seemingly paranormal experiences and occurrences. With a background in the pseudo-scientific research into ghosts, Hayley offers a unique insight into the strange world of ghost hunting through her experience.

She describes herself as 'a ghost hunter who doesn't hunt for ghosts' and this is her personal blog where she writes about ghosts, people, and other interesting things. Read more here.

Recommended Posts




Question.Explore.Discover. Back for an encore. Only £89


Those looking for the 'QED Rebel Dinner' click here.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 41 other followers

%d bloggers like this: